SADIC MOHAMMED Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common Judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) Nos. 4047/2015 and 28545/2014 is impugned. The appellants herein are the petitioners in WP(C) No.4047 of 2015. Consequent to an auction notice dated 16.02.2010 by the third respondent Bank pursuant to the final order in O.A.Nos.203/2007 and 161/2008 under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the petitioners had bid and purchased four vehicles in auction conducted on 05.03.2010. As successful bidders, the appellants approached the third respondent Bank for obtaining registration certificates pertaining to the vehicles. They were directed to approach the first respondent for issuance of duplicate certificates as originals were not available with the Bank. On approaching the first respondent, they were told that the clearance certificate could not be issued as there were outstanding liability of Rs.90, 000/- on each of the vehicles towards the arrears of motor vehicle tax. The appellants contended that they were not liable to pay the tax and that the registered owners of the vehicles at the relevant point of time, had the obligation to pay the same. The first respondent refused to accede to the request and so the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by filing WP(C) No.28062/2010, challenging the order of the first respondent. As per Ext.P1 judgment, the said Writ Petition was disposed directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months, fixing the liability for payment of arrears of motor vehicle tax in respect of the four vehicles in question, and that the Bank Guarantee furnished by the appellants was directed to be kept alive till the finalisation of the order. Accordingly, the first respondent passed Exts.P2 to P5 orders, all dated 19.01.2012, casting the liability to pay the arrears of tax on the third respondent Bank. The appellants again approached this Court in WP(C) No.4933/2012 seeking return of the Bank Guarantee furnished by them in pursuance of Ext.P1 judgment. The third respondent Bank also approached this Court with WP(C) No.7295/2012 contending that they were not given any notice before Exts.P2 to P5 orders were passed by the first respondent. As per Ext.P11 common judgment in the aforesaid Petitions, Exts.P2 to P5 were quashed and the first respondent was directed to hear the matter afresh, after notice to all the affected parties and to return the Bank Guarantee to the appellants in case the order is in their favour. The first respondent after hearing both the sides as directed by this Court, passed Ext.P7 order, once again mulcting the liability on the third respondent Bank. The Bank challenged Ext.P7 order in appeal before the second respondent-Deputy Transport Commissioner. As per Ext.P8 order, the appeal was dismissed and hence, the appellants once again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.28545/2014 seeking return of the Bank Guarantee furnished by them consequent to the finding in Ext.P7 order as confirmed in Ext.P8 order. However, the third respondent Bank preferred a revision against Ext.P8 order before the fourth respondent-Transport Commissioner. The fourth respondent, as per Ext.P10 order, allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the first respondent, for consideration afresh.

(2.) In WP(C) No.4047/2015, the appellants impugn Exts.P8 and P10 orders contending that in view of Exts.P1 and P11 Judgments, the order of the fourth respondent is vitiated and that in view of the order passed by the first respondent fixing the liability on the third respondent Bank, it was not open to them to challenge the orders of the first respondent in appeal before the second respondent or in revision before the fourth respondent.

(3.) The Writ Petitions 4047/2015 and 28545/2014 were disposed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment, holding that the appellants cannot dispute the correctness of the order of the fourth respondent, at this belated stage; as the first respondent has, pursuant to Ext P10, passed an order on 28.01.2015, even prior to filing of W.P(C) 4075/2015. But at the same time, held that nothing would stand in the way of the appellants independently challenging the order dated 28.01.2015 of the first respondent for the limited purpose of establishing that tax liability fixed against the appellants in respect of the vehicles in question is excessive, or for the purpose of showing that there could not have been any liability in respect of the vehicles in question for any particular period, on account of any exemption that the appellants were entitled to.